The nation’s top seller of abortions, Planned Parenthood said they are “glad” a murder charge has been dropped against a woman who killed her unborn child using an abortion pill she purchased online.

23-year-old Kenlissa Jones allegedly took the abortion pill, Cytotec, after she purchased it off the internet to abort he five-and-a-half-month-old baby boy.

The drug, also known as Misoprostol, is promoted by abortion advocates in home abortion remedies online.

According to reports, Jones got a neighbor to take her to the hospital, but she delivered the baby boy in the car on the way.

Dougherty County police say that Jones’ baby boy died after about half an hour at the hospital and originally charged Jones with malice murder and possession of a dangerous drug.

Now, according to the AP, Dougherty County District Attorney Greg Edwards has dropped the murder charge and is pursuing a drug possession count instead.

He said Jones still faces a misdemeanor charge of possessing a dangerous drug, which Georgia law defines as any drug requiring a prescription.

In a tweet posted just after the decision became public, Planned Parenthood wrote, “We’re glad to see Kenlissia’s murder charges dropped—but alarmed at what can happen if safe abortion is inaccessible.”

As previously reported, abortion supporters originally came to Jones’ defense in a similar way as they rushed to defend Purvi Patel, an Indiana woman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison on feticide and neglect charges after she took abortion pills she had ordered to abort her roughly thirty (30) week pregnancy.

While Planned Parenthood says they are “alarmed at what can happen if safe abortion is inaccessible” they are blocking measures to tell women that they can reverse the affects of abortion pills to keep their babies.

The abortion business has recently filed a federal lawsuit to stop a new law in Arkansas which requires abortionists to notify their patients that the abortion pill can be reversed.

They join a litany of so-called pro-choicers who oppose the pro-life measure.

An Orange Circuit judge is likely to decide soon whether to reverse a $36.7 million jury award in a medical-malpractice case decided last month against a suspended Orlando-area abortion doctor and his clinic, the Orlando Women’s Center.

An Orange County jury awarded $18.7 million in compensatory damages and a total $18 million in punitive damages against James Scott Pendergraft IV and the Orlando Women’s Center, where he was listed in court papers as one-time medical director.Pendergraft’s attorney, Robert Nesmith, filed a post-trial motion early this month to set aside the verdict for the monetary damages. He also requested a new trial. Nesmith would not comment with the case still pending.

Pendergraft, listed as founder of the Orlando Women’s Center on its website and as the “business owner” by someone answering the phone at a clinic location, could not be reached for comment.

State Department of Health records show Pendergraft cannot currently practice medicine in Florida.

“His license status is currently suspended,” DOH spokeswoman Jennifer Hirst said. However, it is not revoked, and all details behind the license suspension were not immediately available.

The lawsuit involves a woman, identified as C.H. in court documents, who went to the Orlando Women’s Center on Nov. 15, 2001, to terminate what she thought was a 16- to 20-week pregnancy. Staff at the center determined she was 22.3 weeks pregnant, according to the complaint and other court records.

Staff at the clinic gave her 12 doses of Cytotec and a single dose of RU-486 during an 11- or 12-hour period to induce labor. Neither Pendergraft nor another physician at the facility, Dr. Randall B. Whitney, personally evaluated, examined or treated the woman, the lawsuit says.

At about 1 a.m. Nov. 16, “C.H. was instructed to and/or allowed to leave the Orlando Women’s Center while in active labor,” according to the claim.

She then went to the emergency room at Orlando Regional Medical Center in “active labor” and gave birth by cesarean section “to a viable female child,” the lawsuit says.

That baby, identified in court documents as J.F., was “born prematurely and has suffered catastrophic and permanent bodily injuries, impairment, disability, [and] disfigurement.” Expenses related to the child’s care and treatment formed the basis of the lawsuit.

In his motion to set aside the verdict, Nesmith argues that “strict liability” should not have applied in this case. “This is a standard negligence case,” he wrote.

His argument covers Florida’s statute governing so-called partial-birth abortions, while maintaining the procedure performed on C.H. was not an attempted partial-birth abortion.

“By Florida statutes and previous cases, the fetus was not viable when the mother presented to Orlando Women’s Center and thus [the statute] does not apply in this case and therefore there cannot be strict liability,” Nesmith wrote. “Strict liability statutes … only apply to persons,” he also argued. “A fetus is not a person.”

Because the woman came to the center to have an abortion, “survival of the plaintiff’s child was never anticipated under this arrangement,” Nesmith argued.

He also claims the judge made an error in not allowing the defendant to show “the patient was at fault.” Nesmith says C.H. was negligent “for bolting from the Orlando Women’s Center.” She was not asked or forced to leave the clinic, and had she stayed “the abortion procedure would have been completed ….”